On Mon, 8 Feb 1993 00:49:26 PST Edward Agro <[log in to unmask]> said:
 
>However,  IMHO,  - I'm  not  even  a listowner  -  I  suggest that  even
>lower-bound information as to the frequency of use of certain classes of
>items (contact  lists, say)  within list  databases would  go a  ways to
>making the mailing lists more user friendly. It's not a matter of memory
>- that's cheap  enough - but  more one of  indicating to the  people who
>keep these items updated whether or not their work is warranted.
 
As  I  explained to  you  in  private,  this  information would  have  no
statistical meaning. With  less than one database search job  a day, many
of which  may happen to select  your article because the  search criteria
were too broad  or because it happened to contain  a particular word, and
with thousands  of articles in the  archive, you'd be told  that some 2-3
users accessed one  of your articles, possibly by mistake,  in the last 6
months.  What is  the  value  of this  information?  With  the amount  of
searches in the 1% of the list membership, whatever result you might get,
and assuming the  article WAS what the searcher was  looking after, would
be totally  negligible compared to the  amount of people who  read or did
not read the article when it was posted.
 
  Eric